High-Res Scan of Mona Lisa Reveals Its History 169
daevux writes "CNN is reporting that French engineer Pascal Cotte has discovered interesting details of the history of Da Vinci's Mona Lisa from a 240-megapixel scan of the artwork in various frequencies. Cotte surmises that the painted figure's eyebrows and eyelashes probably disappeared due to poor cleaning at some point in the past. He believes he can reconstruct the painting's original skin tones."
It's a Man Baby (Score:2, Funny)
It's a Man BABY!!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's a Man Baby (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure exactly which pics you're talking about (the Mona Lisa scans or Da Vinci pics that were reversed and compared) but there's some interesting pics and additional info here [lumiere-technology.com], including a virtual restoration of the original pigments and some details of what was revealed.
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go, this is the Mona Vanna, [wikimedia.org], painted by one of Leonardo's students.
Re:It's a Man Baby (Score:4, Funny)
But what about Tom Hanks' hair? (Score:2)
Hidden faces in Mona Lisa (Score:5, Funny)
Forget her face... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And Ma'el, can't forget the Taelon influence.
Re: (Score:2)
Blended together in the Gimp.
But isn't this kind of reverse engineering of copyrighted work illegal ? And doesn't it make high-resolution cameras into copy protection circumvention devices ? After all, using colors which fade over time is a pretty effective way of stopping anyone from copying the original image.
Historical Significance to the art world (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying I wouldn't love to see a print of what it looked like "originally" but the aging of the painting adds to the significance of the work as a whole doesn't it? If so wouldn't things like thing cheapen the priceless nature of these pieces?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Historical Significance to the art world (Score:5, Funny)
DISCLAIMER: Effects may vary.
Re:Historical Significance to the art world (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Historical Significance to the art world (Score:4, Funny)
Context is LOST through degradation, not gained! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying I wouldn't love to see a print of what it looked like "originally" but the aging of the painting adds to the significance of the work as a whole doesn't it? If so wouldn't things like thing cheapen the priceless nature of these pieces?
DAMN no!
Oh my god. Seriously, what you're saying is that a worn VHS is better than a remastered DVD.
Worse, you're somehow thinking that we'll lose the historical context... as if restoration would eliminate the millions of pages detailing that context or the millions of reproductions of the work in its aged state.
The degradation, I'll have you know, is what causes the loss of historical context.
People think that old stone churches were always gray and foreboding buildings, when historically they were colorful, but that context was lost through erosion of the pigments.
Re:Context is LOST through degradation, not gained (Score:3, Interesting)
Historically they were colourful, but that context was lost through whitewash.
Literally. Cromwell has a whole lot to answer for.
Re:Context is LOST through degradation, not gained (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know...they recently renovated an old, gothic-style church near where I live, and it's still gray and bleak.
Exactly what I was saying: lost.
The newer ones were made to look like the degraded state of the older ones, because the context of the originals was lost.
I also think that the ruins of the great pyramids of Egypt ought to be restored to their shiny white polished original state. There's no reason to let them degrade further, nor to keep them in the dilapidated state in which they were rediscovered, as if that coincidental level of degradation was somehow sacred.
But considering the horrors that the governme
Re:Context is LOST through degradation, not gained (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their patrons wanted work that would remain interesting over several generations, so there are usually a lot of "subtexts" in the picture that will only be revealed by repeated viewing.
Artist knew that the colours and varnishes they used would not finally "set" for some months or years so they had in mind a finished look that would not be achieved on day 1.
The artists themselves were
Months != Generations! (Score:3, Interesting)
In Leonardo's time, no one really knew about how artwork degrades over centuries. They did have access to artworks that were centuries old at the time, but they had no way to analyze how those works had been degraded over the years.
All they knew was what they could remember over their lifetimes. It's only recently that we have deve
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I *did* take an art history class in university. People did *not* bother to make their work last for generations before the 19th century.
Sometimes they did use techniques that were long lasting, for instance using inks based on copper oxides instead of carbon black for writing, but that was just coincidence. People in the 16th century had no idea at all about chemical reactions and processes, how could they predict what would work over the centuries?
Writi
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, which was the first text ever written for the future, as in several centuries? People before the 18th or 19th century never worried about the distant future at all. Their technology was so primitive that they were happy to survive into the next year.
As so often, the Greeks did it first. Thoukydides, on the Peloponnesian War:
But anyone who, on the evidence I have given, arrives at similar conclusions concerning past times, would not be far wrong; he would not be taken in, like the poets who exaggerate their fantasies, or historians who compile works more with a view to pleasing the ear than for truthfulness; their accounts cannot be checked; and as time passes, most of the facts are overwhelmed by myth. ... I have not chosen to write of actions carried out in the [Peloponnesian] War based on chance information or out of personal preference, but I have described only things that I either saw myself, or learned from others through the most careful and specific enquiry. My material was gained laboriously, as eye-witnesses of given events gave different accounts of them, whether because of memory or because they were biased to one side or the other.
And it may be that the un-mythical character of these events will seem less pleasant to the ear. But anyone who wants to observe an accurate picture of events that have taken place and which will perhaps take place again in the future through the common human nature of such things: it will be enough if they can judge this material useful.
This work is a possession for all time, rather than a prize composition to be heard once.
-- Thoukydides 1.21-22
(For what it's worth, I know a bloke who posted a copy of Thoukydides to Tony Blair shortly after the beginning of the aggression against Iraq, along with a letter to the effect that those who don't learn from history ... you know the rest.)
Re: (Score:2)
Bit of a shame really. You can still see the evidence in some churches if you look closely.
Re:Context is LOST through degradation, not gained (Score:3, Insightful)
a) The VHS/DVD argument is garbage because there are more than one of them and you cannot physically change one into the other.
b) How do you know that the restoration has returned the item to it's original luster. What if it was originally painted in dull tones, but today's experts say they used bright tones back then. Which leads to...
c) If the restoration is screwed up the item is lost. Forever.
Sure we have loads of information and reproductions of th
Re: (Score:2)
So you're in favor of colorizing black and white films?
Was the original work in color? No? Then why the fuck would you think that applies?
Seriously, I say "restore to original", you parse that as "modify to look like a newer technique".
No, that was done a lot to many works in the past, and it is definitely not even remotely similar to restoring the work to the original.
You need to find some way to learn logic. I don't know how you can go about doing that, but you really need to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
b) How do you know that the restoration has returned the item to it's original luster.
You don't. What we DO know is that todays version is wrong and faded. You seem to think there's only two states, right and wrong. In reality we can likely get closer to that original state.
What if it was originally painted in dull tones, but today's experts say they used bright tones back then.
What if todays experts said they used cheese instead of paint, and decided to cover it with cheese wiz? You can make up a lot o
Re:Context is LOST through degradation, not gained (Score:2)
No, no, NO! No it doesn't.
DAMN no!
As an example, it was only the degradation of the Turin Shroud that gave us the historical context that proved it was fake. (infiltration of pollen from the wrong area etc...)
Re:Context is LOST through degradation, not gained (Score:2)
And people also think ancient Greco-Roman sculpture and architecture--which were painted in vivid colors--were all pure white marble, to the point of creating pure white marble sculpture and architecture in imitation of their models.
Chris Mattern
Re: (Score:2)
And people also think ancient Greco-Roman sculpture and architecture--which were painted in vivid colors--were all pure white marble, to the point of creating pure white marble sculpture and architecture in imitation of their models.
Exactly! It gives people a false context of history, and we shouldn't preserve that.
Re:Context is LOST through degradation, not gained (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your post. It made me realize just how much people are not interested in the actual work, but the sentimental value and charm of old worn things. Thinking of these works in pristine condition as being of greater historical value took me a few moments. Thanks.
Hey, no problem! Glad I made someone think of something from a different perspective. ;-)
For extra fun, next time a baby boomer tells you they liked the original Batman better than the new ones, tell them you too liked the black and white one where he fights an evil Japanese scientist and his nuclear cannon [bureau42.com]
I like to inform them that the first one they saw was a parody, not the original. Context is crucial to all things.
Re:Context is LOST through degradation, not gained (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, sometimes it is. A while back I saw a restored church - where the worn stone steps were replaced with new ones, and the worn and discolored pews treated similarly. The aged floor was carefully sanded down, covered with polyurethane and polished. etc... etc...
It truly is a beautiful building - but today it looks like it never did historically, except maybe on the day it was completed. All histori
Re: (Score:2)
Then why, historically, have they been illustrated as being nearly monochrome? That alone suggest that they weren't historically colorful, and that if they were it was for a brief time only.
Have they? I can't readily recall any ancient illustrations of churches... You got any?
Re:Context is LOST through degradation, not gained (Score:2)
The degradation, I'll have you know, is what causes the loss of historical context.
People think that old stone churches were always gray and foreboding buildings, when historically they were colorful, but that context was lost through erosion of the pigments.
That's definitely true in this case. Even more interesting than the skin tones is the vibrant blue background [lumiere-technology.com], painted with "Lapis lazuli, the most expensive pigment to buy, actually more than 20.000 $ the Kg !", according to this page [lumiere-technology.com] linked earlier.
Re:Context is LOST through degradation, not gained (Score:5, Insightful)
Restoring something to the way it was initially experienced is different from trying to enhance it beyond what it originally was.
Both are culturally beneficial, but the enhancement is more like a new work than an authentic reproduction of the old work.
Restoration VS Colourization (Score:2)
Here's another example for you:
Restoration - re-releasing Star Wars on DVD, with video and audio copied from the original except visual/audio flaws and artifacts have been removed.
Crapification - re-releasing Star Wars on DVD, except there's all this CG crap in the bac
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Crapification - re-releasing Star Wars on DVD, except there's all this CG crap in the background that wasn't there before.
Re: (Score:2)
IME the big problem that's introduced with the CGI isn't so much "I don't like it because I saw the original". It's where you see the original with a set which wobbles when a character sits down too fast and the spaceship is obviously a model, cutting to visually stunning shots which look really shiny and polished. It's just such a jar that the willing suspension of disbelief crumbles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you modify the original to modernize it, you're comparing apples to cement mixers.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an age-old problem.
Nothing lasts forever. Yet at the same time, nobody wants to lose a great masterpiece. What do you do?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The proper term for what you're describing is patina. I'd like to add an interesting twist to it.
In the early nineties, I visited a town's monastery in central Mexico, where art students were restoring a 1820's mural by the painter Eugenio Tres Guerras (literally, Eugene Three Wars), a rendition of the Final Judgment. The lower half of the mural, within arm's reach, represented a cross-section of catacombs, painted mostly in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is something to be said about a painting's appeal over the ages AS it ages. If it's restored beyond a certain point won't we lose some historical context for the pieces and the methods used?
There's something to be said for "oldness" under some circumstances, yes, but if anything, historical context would be re-gained.
Personally, I'd like to see half this much attention being paid to Leonardo's painting of John the Baptist in the next room over, which is greatly superior in my opinion.
(Yes, I mean the Leonardo one, not the "Bacchus/John the Baptist" one that can't be certainly ascribed to Leonardo, though that's also significantly better than the Mona Lisa.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's also why so many people are disappointed when they see the original: It's the size of a portrait, not the size of a wall-hanging picture like how it's always shown on TV. People expect this big thing, and they get a much smaller reality, so they feel let down.
Re: (Score:2)
they don't let you get close enought to it to proppery appreciate it.. infact when i was there you had to be 20+ feet away from it.. and it was sitting in thi huge almost valut thing with a window.. kinda pointless in my mind.. far more exciting things to see there..
Re: (Score:2)
oh i enjoyed it when i saw it.. although i think i got more amussement out of the people videotaping it than i did the painting..
they don't let you get close enought to it to proppery appreciate it.. infact when i was there you had to be 20+ feet away from it.. and it was sitting in thi huge almost valut thing with a window.. kinda pointless in my mind.. far more exciting things to see there..
20 feet? Yikes, it's worse than I thought... then again, they do have a bit of a theft problem with that one. ;-)
But I guess if you still enjoyed it, you're not "most people"... good for you
I'm sure there's far more fascinating things to see all over the Louvre, but it's one of those things, you just HAVE to go do that. It's like visiting New York and not going to the top of the Empire State building, it's anathema.
Re: (Score:2)
link (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you have a newscom account, you can dowload a higher res image here
http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/members/s?f=PRN/prnphotos&p1=20071017/LAW145&xtag=PRN-prnphotos-66154&redir=detail&tr=1&row=1 [newscom.com]
1600*2388px here... (Score:2)
http://abm-enterprises.net/artgall2/monalisa.jpg [abm-enterprises.net]
Also, a large detail of the eyes (Score:2)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Mona_Lisa_detail_eyes.jpg [wikimedia.org]
how much? (Score:4, Funny)
A painting, badly damaged
Gentlemen, we can rebuild her
We have the technology
We have the capability
Mona Lisa is that painting
Better than she was before
Brighter - Truer colors - Anatomically Complete
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doctor Who "City of Death" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Old Masters (Score:3, Informative)
He goes on at length here [virginia.edu], down around page 190.
Bitmap compressed to 2 bytes (Score:5, Funny)
That's a kickass compressor.
One slight problem (Score:5, Funny)
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot researcher CowboyNeal has used the same 240 megapixel camera and advanced imaging techniques to reveal the history of the goatsecx picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot researcher CowboyNeal has used the same 240 megapixel camera and advanced imaging techniques to reveal the history of the goatsecx picture.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Holy cow, there's actually a growing field of Goatsetologists?
Ironic advertisment (Score:5, Funny)
I found it amusing that the ad I got while reading the article was for Botox...
The REAL question is (Score:5, Funny)
While the rest of the world may enjoy Leonardo's original work, here in the US we simply will not tolerate such abashed attacks on the copyrights of Leonardo. What do you mean copyright has expired? Ok, give us one more congressional session (and a couple pleasure boat cruises) and we will have that fixed.
Pascal Cotte? (Score:2)
Brows/lashes wiped off? (Score:4, Funny)
FTA
"And if you look closely at the eye of 'Mona Lisa' you can clearly see that the cracks around the eye have slightly disappeared, and that may be explained that one day a curator or restorer cleaned the eye, and cleaning the eye, removed, probably removed the eyelashes and eyebrow," he said.
Why would a single pigment/color disappear?
Weren't colors back then all made with the same base? In that case, why would only the eyebrows disappear and nothing else shows a smudge from whatever cleaning agent it was used? (if this is the case).
Not to mention that I would have loved to be there for THAT occasion:
Owner: "Can you get this thing cleaned up for me?"
Curator: "Sure thing mister, I'm a professional."
Owner: "It's priceless you know..."
Curator: "I'll take good care of it."
Curator starts the restoration from the eyes and accidentally wipes off eyebrows and eyelashes.
Curator: "Fuck!"
Curator: "Well... maybe if I get the eyes soaked in enough oil to not crack for 500 years, no one will notice."
Owner gets back.
Owner: "Hmm... look at them eyes! They're awesome!"
Owner: "There's something different about her, is it her smile?"
Curator: "I'm just a restorer, but yeah, er... she looks mysterious."
Owner: "Nice eyes though!"
So much speculation...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amusing (Score:2)
On the other hand, it does make artists mo
You can see the restored colors here (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody has something wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
correct (Score:2, Troll)
Fixed it for ya (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe Da Vinci removed them (Score:4, Insightful)
God way to sell his service though and how does one get permision to scan somthing like this?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at a rough guess you could try approaching the gallery first...
This Just In! (Score:3, Funny)
Attempts to restore the original are now underway.
Prior Art (Score:2)
Anyway, using knowledge of how paint pigments aged, they took the image back in time to show what it most likely looked like when completed. Much nicer than the rather murky looking image we see today.
I'd love to get a copy of that image no
But even more interesting than the eyebrows... (Score:3, Funny)
Missing Eyebrows (Score:2)
Was Mr. Bean by any chance (Score:2)
Aging? (Score:2, Interesting)
Vasari wrote about the Mona Lisa's eyebrows (Score:2)
http://www.jstor.org/view/00076287/ap020301/02a00030/0 [jstor.org]
Giorgio Vasari (July 30, 1511 - June 27, 1574) was an Italian painter and architect, known for his famous biographies of Italian artists.
He would have seen the Mona Lisa when it was relatively new.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
She's not as happy as she was because she worked hard to lose the weight, then along came Rubens who only painted fat chicks.
Do I look fat in this painting? (Score:3, Funny)
They're not fat they're Ruebenesque.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it wasn't Leonardo's idea ;) (Score:5, Funny)
Act 1:
Leonardo's PHB: Good news Leonardo! We've won the preliminary round of talks with Francesco del Giocondo for a painting! Now he'll only want a time and cost estimate, and a tech demo to help him make up his mind!
Leonardo: Great! Did he say _what_ he wants painted? How big? I mean, the cost and time depends on that.
Leonardo's PHB: Now, now, Leonardo... what did I tell you about scaring the customers with that kind of technical questions? Get working on that demo already, and we'll ask for more details after he sees it.
Leonardo: Hmm, ok, WTH, I'll just paint the castle then...
Leonardo's PHB: That's the spirit!
Act 2:
Leonardo's PHB: Sad to say, Mr del Giocondo wasn't impressed with your demo. He said it was too sketchy and lacking any detail, but luckily the VP of Marketing managed to convince him to give you another chance.
Leonardo: Whoa there, you said he wanted a demo, not a full painting. Of course it's sketchy!
Leonardo's PHB: Now, now, we're not at assigning blame. What matters is that we get the contract, right?
Leonardo: Right. I guess I'll go back to painting the castle, then.
Leonardo's PHB: Oh, right, I forgot to mention that. He thinks that it doesn't quite fit what he had in mind, so he'll want it changed to a lake.
Leonardo: Ah well, I'll just get a fresh canvas then.
Leonardo's PHB: Not so fast, we don't have the budget for a new painting. You'll have to change the demo from a castle to a lake.
Leonardo: You're kidding, right? I mean, seriously...
Leonardo's PHB: Do I look like I'm kidding? I already promised the CEO it'll be ready in half the time of a new demo.
Leonardo: Oh, for fuck's sake...
Act 3:
Leonardo's PHB: Good news, Leonardo. Francesco was pleased, now he wants to see how the lake looks as a background for a woman's portrait.
Leonardo: Let me guess, he wants her painted _over_ the lake, because someone told him it'll be cheaper, right?
Leonardo's PHB: Well, duh, of course.
Leonardo: So when does he send this woman here, so I can paint her?
Leonardo's PHB: Who said anything about doing the final product already? You're just supposed to do another demo, so he can see if that's what he wants. Just take any woman and paint her there.
Leonardo: Grrr... Ok, I'll just paint my girlfriend, then.
Act 4:
Francesco del Giocondo: Ah, yes, Mr da Vinci, I presume. Yes, that's very interesting, indeed. See, the lake is exactly what I had in mind for the background, but what I actually want is a portrait of my wife, Lisa.
Leonardo: Great. I'll just get a new canvas, and we can talk about what time should I start.
Francesco del Giocondo: Wait, new canvas? I was assured that we can just change that bit in the demo. I mean, look at it, it looks almost ready...
Leonardo's PHB: Yes, of course, Mr del Giocondo. No need to waste money on starting from scratch.
Leonardo: Guys, that's crazy, that wasn't supposed to work that way.
Francesco del Giocondo: Well, I see... I guess I'll have to find another painter, then.
Leonardo's PHB: Leonardo, so help me God, if we lose this customer, I'll make sure you never work again in this city!
Leonardo: Ok, ok, I'll just... ummm, make her a bit thinner then to match Mrs Gioconda. Right.
Francesco del Giocondo: Oh, I'm so delighted we could reach an agreement.
Act 5:
(Several months later.)
Mona Lisa: Hmm, no, those eyebrows just won't do... They'll have to go.
Leonardo: Completely??
Mona Lisa: Yes. My friend, Maria assures me that that's the latest fashion in Constantinople.
Leonardo: But... but... you'll look like a radiotherapy patient without them.
Mona Lisa: Mr da Vinci, I think you forget who's the customer here! No way I'm accepting this product as it is!
Leonardo: Ah, ok, let me get my turpentine bottle then. Anything else?
Mona Lisa: In fact,
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it shouldn't be open to the public since the bandwidth usage might be insane (at least for now) but I should be able to go look at the copies on a PC at the nearest public university, and save them to my laptop if I want.
I can't speak for everyone, but very high quality scans with some commentary on things to look at/for in the painting would make me much more likely to be interested in seeing the original. Paintings with no
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a 10MegaPixel Point & Shoot camera that takes crap pictures compared to my 8MegaPixel SLR.
Re:it still doesn't answer the most important ques (Score:2)
****
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15029288/ [msn.com]
No, the clothes she is wearing were common for expecting women of her time. It's also probably who Leonardo might have made her cheeks look less round. There is some speculation that he tried to cover up the fact later in his life by altering the painting.